Viewing 15 posts - 47,761 through 47,775 (of 59,095 total)
You're trying to reinvent the wheel. 🙂 Use BCP or Bulk Insert, instead.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 8:02 pm
This is a "simple" :hehe: "running total" problem except instead of a running total that carries the previous balance of each row forward, we'll just carry the previous value of...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 7:57 pm
rgillings (10/13/2008)
I wouldn't feel right if I didn't offer a non-cursor alternative.
Heh... it's still RBAR on steroids, though. A cursor with Forward Only Read Only will be just as...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I believe you can add something like "Sort In TempDB" to your commands and only TempDB will change size, then. Lookup the reindexing commands you're using in Books Online...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Shree (10/13/2008)
Hi, do you think can we write without the XML?
Yep... see the following article...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Test+Data/61572/
Also, the folks in charge of the database have made a bloody huge error in not...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 7:27 pm
See the following for a basic "how to" and some pitfalls to avoid...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Test+Data/61572/
... and, in most cases, the biggest pitfall is the task itself. CSV data shouldn't be stored...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Greg Charles (10/13/2008)
The dollar sign isn't stored in SQL Server. If you need to display the money columns with the symbol, it should be applied in the application.
Heh... true...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 7:13 pm
DBADave (9/23/2008)
Sounds like our DBA team won't be able to offer any arguments against it.Thanks for the quick response.
Dave
Actually there is an argument against it. ...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Heh... well, let's get sneaky, then...
DECLARE @Insert VARCHAR(MAX), @Select VARCHAR(MAX)
SET @Insert = ' INSERT INTO NewTable '
SELECT @Select = COALESCE(@Select + ' UNION ALL','') +...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Correct... it isn't free. It only consts about $50, though. And, if you get caught using it on a production box, big fines are possible/probable.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 4:00 pm
You bet... thanks for the feedback.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Garadin (10/13/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 9:36 am
Not a good thing to do... the Percentage of Batch is highly unreliable and frequently absolutely incorrect...
Look at the Percentage of Batch on the following code... then run it... SURPRISE!...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 9:09 am
Kenney Hill (10/11/2008)
And thanks for pointing out the RBAR aspect of recursive queries. I'm still not very good at spotting hidden RBAR, and you are the master...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 8:34 am
Garadin (10/12/2008)
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
October 13, 2008 at 8:26 am
Viewing 15 posts - 47,761 through 47,775 (of 59,095 total)